During a packed press conference in Davos, Bill Gates said his foundation would donate $900 million to fund the fight against tuberculosis, which claimed the lives of 1.6 million people in 2005. (This was no ordinary press conference: George Soros sat in
the audience.)

After he made the announcement, the Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo, who was sitting on the dais with Gates, asked why he didn't just give a round $1 billion? Everyone laughed, including Gates. But he didn't have an answer.

C'mon Bill, you've got the money. It's just $100 million more. You could probably put it on your American Express card. Bono will get you one of those new "Red" cards and part of your donation would make its way to fighting AIDS in Africa. Not a bad deal,
eh?

I hope Paul Allen invites Bill to the Superbowl next Sunday and if he decides to invest $900 million in Michigan they'll all cheer!

My personal view as to why Mr Gates decided against giving a full $1,000,000,000 is probably that it would change some of the finances that 'he' has to deal with; I would think that the sum of $900,000,000 has probably arisen as it will do something that
will allow him to lower certain figures, and possibly pay less tax; this is just and idea, but it would explain why.

After watching The Constant Gardener, I kind of wonder what exactly happens with the funds and how they are distributed. How much of a cut winds up in the back pocket of the various dictators and demagogues over there?

After seeing The Constant Gardener (too) I say, if you really want to do something, don't throw money around, but actually do something with your
own hands. This would mean: quit your job. Live in Africa. Share the poverty instead of filling pockets of others with the kind of money that generated the poverty in the first place.

You won't beat poverty with money but with living an example...
... If you really care about it.

After seeing The Constant Gardener (too) I say, if you really want to do something, don't throw money around, but actually do something with your
own hands. This would mean: quit your job. Live in Africa. Share the poverty instead of filling pockets of others with the kind of money that generated the poverty in the first place.

You won't beat poverty with money but with living an example...
... If you really care about it.

Hear, Hear! Bill should quit donating billions of dollars to social causes and instead, he should join the peace corps.

After seeing The Constant Gardener (too) I say, if you really want to do something, don't throw money around, but actually do something with your
own hands. This would mean: quit your job. Live in Africa. Share the poverty instead of filling pockets of others with the kind of money that generated the poverty in the first place.

You won't beat poverty with money but with living an example...
... If you really care about it.

How does this work exactly?

It sounds like saying, "If you really want to beat illness, don't become a doctor -- make yourself SICK and become a PATIENT." Or "If you want to stop crime, drop out of the police academy and become a CRIMINAL."

I'll take a guess here: the charity probably had projects worth funding for $900M, and not for $1bn. I found the recent Time Magazine story on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation a very insightful read, that I would certainly recommend to some of the
snipers in this comment stream.
You don't help anyone by simply throwing money at causes without also providing the leadership to help directing the money efficiently. This maybe Bill Gates's real contribution.

BuckyBit wrote:After seeing The Constant Gardener (too) I say, if you
really want to do something, don't throw money around, but actually do something with your
own hands. This would mean: quit your job. Live in Africa. Share the poverty instead of filling pockets of others with the kind of money that generated the poverty in the first place.

You won't beat poverty with money but with living an example...
... If you really care about it.

How does this work exactly?

It sounds like saying, "If you really want to beat illness, don't become a doctor -- make yourself SICK and become a PATIENT." Or "If you want to stop crime, drop out of the police academy and become a CRIMINAL."

Donating 900$ or even 1Bill for a TBC-fund is creating an object (welcome progs) that won't change the environment the poor live in, the struggle they have to fight to survive, the education they need to empower themselves etc... - so
tbc would not be an issue, the way, it is no issue in the rich countries.

Building a company that fuels the kind of economy that actually creates poverty and then donating the money that comes out of (metaphorically)
stealing it from the poor countries (by not allowing them to play with 'big business') makes no real-life attempt to
change the system. Sure, a billionaire can move more things and people than, let's say, Albert Schweizer, Mother Teresa or a medic who spents his vacation working 60 hours in a refugee camp. They also don't change the system
per se, but they show other ordinary people what every ordinary man can do,
if only they would like to. So, yes, it is the rather obscure, metaphysical way of
"sharing the disease" rather than being the illness.

How many billions have been spent for the 3rd world countries? What has happend in the last 50 years? Why is there no real progress? True, there is corruption, dictatorship, etc... but the economic troubles have their roots in the policies of powerful and rich
countries and corporations as much as in local failures.

Now, you can beat me because I stay vague and don't attempt to add a list of links about business and economic theory. But let's say, I was trying to suggest, that throwing money around is not a real ethical value, while doing something - as I said - with
your own handsis. I am no christian, but I like this very deeply old-fashion christian thinking. [A]

Donating 900$ or even 1Bill for a TBC-fund is creating an object (welcome progs) that won't change the environment the poor live in, the struggle they have to fight to survive, the education they need to empower themselves etc... - so
tbc would not be an issue, the way, it is no issue in the rich countries.

How is eradicating tuberculosis not changing the environment? How does defeating TB
not change the struggle to survive, if you're one of the 36 million people worldwide who die of it each year?

BuckyBit wrote:

Building a company that fuels the kind of economy that actually creates poverty and then donating the money that comes out of (metaphorically)
stealing it from the poor countries (by not allowing them to play with 'big business') makes no real-life attempt to
change the system. Sure, a billionaire can move more things and people than, let's say, Albert Schweizer, Mother Teresa or a medic who spents his vacation working 60 hours in a refugee camp. They also don't change the system
per se, but they show other ordinary people what every ordinary man can do,
if only they would like to. So, yes, it is the rather obscure, metaphysical way of
"sharing the disease" rather than being the illness.

It's obscure to the point I don't understand it at all. Fueling the economy creates poverty? Lots of IT companies are setting up shop in India, and this constitutes stealing from "poor countries?" Bill Gates going to Africa and digging a well with his bare
hands is somehow better than Bill Gates sending millions of dollars of well-digging and irrigation equipment to Africa?

Is the goal supposed to be equality -- that everyone should be equally poor,
equally sick -- rather than helping the poor to create wealth and helping the sick to become well?

BuckyBit wrote:

How many billions have been spent for the 3rd world countries? What has happend in the last 50 years? Why is there no real progress? True, there is corruption, dictatorship, etc... but the economic troubles have their roots in the policies of powerful and rich
countries and corporations as much as in local failures.

Define "real progress." There are millions of people who are walking around today, who WON'T DIE because someone decided to spend billions on vaccines, for example. One example:
GAVI. They estimate they've averted
1.7 million future deaths from vaccine-preventable diseases. If you're one of those 1.7 MILLION people who won't
die, or even just one of the millions more who won't get sick, I think you might call that progress. And that's just one organization.

BuckyBit wrote:

Now, you can beat me because I stay vague and don't attempt to add a list of links about business and economic theory. But let's say, I was trying to suggest, that throwing money around is not a real ethical value, while doing something - as I said - with
your own handsis. I am no christian, but I like this very deeply old-fashion christian thinking.

Here's some old-fashioned Christian thinking:

While [Jesus] was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.

Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, "Why this waste of perfume? It could have been sold for more than a year's wages and the money given to the poor." And they rebuked her harshly.

"Leave her alone," said Jesus. "Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me.
The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. I tell you the truth, wherever the
gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

-- Mark 14:3-9

What I would say: Why are you bothering Bill Gates? He has done a beautiful thing. We're always going to have poor people, and you can go be Mother Teresa or work in a refugee camp any time you feel like it. But we will not always have Bill Gates.

Donating 900$ or even 1Bill for a TBC-fund is creating an object (welcome progs) that won't change the environment the poor live in, the struggle they have to fight to survive, the education they need to empower themselves etc... - so
tbc would not be an issue, the way, it is no issue in the rich countries.

Sure it does...it stops the dead bodies from piling up in one area...so your enviroment stays pretty clear...when they have to struggle to make money for medication and this might help that might help the struggle to survive. Finding out how to best prevent
tubuculosis (sp?) and educating the people in those regions empowers that society.

BuckyBit wrote:

Building a company that fuels the kind of economy that actually creates
poverty and then donating the money that comes out of (metaphorically)
stealing it from the poor countries (by not allowing them to play with 'big business') makes no real-life attempt to
change the system.

Exactlly, because having a 900 Million dollar budget means you can lay off the scientist, doctors, etc needed to use that money right? No it means you can hire more people, maybe steal away those doctors that are hot shots but can't afford to take a pay cut...guess
what...not a problem now. Did you read what you typed before you posted?

BuckyBit wrote:

How many billions have been spent for the 3rd world countries? What has happend in the last 50 years? Why is there no real progress? True, there is corruption, dictatorship, etc... but the economic troubles have their roots in the policies of powerful
and rich countries and corporations as much as in local failures.

Now, you can beat me because I stay vague and don't attempt to add a list of links about business and economic theory. But let's say, I was trying to suggest, that throwing money around is not a real ethical value, while doing something - as I said - with
your own handsis. I am no christian, but I like this very deeply old-fashion christian thinking.

There is a difference...the money has a purpose instead of say "Food for Oil" or money to stop North Korea from starting up the Nuke reactors... Plus do you think Bill Gates is going to just donate 900 Million to "say" it's going to have a good purpose when
it could be used to buy Apple